IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v123y2019i7p606-610.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

New model for prioritised adoption and use of hospital medicine in Denmark since 2017: Challenges and perspectives

Author

Listed:
  • Wadmann, Sarah
  • Kjellberg, Jakob

Abstract

Technological innovation creates new treatment opportunities, while also putting healthcare budgets under strain. To deal with the rising costs of hospital medicines, the regional governments in Denmark have developed a new model for prioritising the adoption and use of hospital medicine. Marking a shift from previous policies, the new model formalises the evaluation of clinical benefit, adds an assessment of treatment costs and ensures a relatively high degree of direct stakeholder involvement. In international comparison, the new model is ambitious in terms of stakeholder involvement and adherence with principles advocated to ensure procedural justice and fair decision-making processes. However, these procedural innovations have also created new challenges. Notably, the newly formed assessment body, the Danish Medicines Council, is faced with a very high caseload and limited options to prioritise the use of its analytical resources.

Suggested Citation

  • Wadmann, Sarah & Kjellberg, Jakob, 2019. "New model for prioritised adoption and use of hospital medicine in Denmark since 2017: Challenges and perspectives," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(7), pages 606-610.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:123:y:2019:i:7:p:606-610
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2019.05.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851019301149
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.healthpol.2019.05.007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cavazza, Marianna & Jommi, Claudio, 2012. "Stakeholders involvement by HTA Organisations: Why is so different?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 236-245.
    2. Robinson, Suzanne & Williams, Iestyn & Dickinson, Helen & Freeman, Tim & Rumbold, Benedict, 2012. "Priority-setting and rationing in healthcare: Evidence from the English experience," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2386-2393.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Steffensen, Mette B. & Matzen, Christina L. & Wadmann, Sarah, 2022. "Patient participation in priority setting: Co-existing participant roles," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 294(C).
    2. Christensen, Elisabeth & Hirsch, Niels Christian & Andersen, Jonas Valbjørn & Ehlers, Lars Holger, 2022. "The analogue substitution model: Introducing competition in the absence of generic substitution in Danish hospitals," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(9), pages 844-852.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Visintin, Erica & Tinelli, Michela & Kanavos, Panos, 2019. "Value assessment of disease-modifying therapies for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: HTA evidence from seven OECD countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 118-129.
    2. Virginia Wiseman & Craig Mitton & Mary M. Doyle‐Waters & Tom Drake & Lesong Conteh & Anthony T. Newall & Obinna Onwujekwe & Stephen Jan, 2016. "Using Economic Evidence to Set Healthcare Priorities in Low‐Income and Lower‐Middle‐Income Countries: A Systematic Review of Methodological Frameworks," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(S1), pages 140-161, February.
    3. Prattana Punnakitikashem & Philip Hallinger, 2019. "Bibliometric Review of the Knowledge Base on Healthcare Management for Sustainability, 1994–2018," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-17, December.
    4. Csanádi, Marcell & Ozierański, Piotr & Löblová, Olga & King, Lawrence & Kaló, Zoltán & Botz, Lajos, 2019. "Shedding light on the HTA consultancy market: Insights from Poland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(12), pages 1237-1243.
    5. Smith, Neale & Mitton, Craig & Hall, William & Bryan, Stirling & Donaldson, Cam & Peacock, Stuart & Gibson, Jennifer L. & Urquhart, Bonnie, 2016. "High performance in healthcare priority setting and resource allocation: A literature- and case study-based framework in the Canadian context," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 185-192.
    6. Borst, Robert A.J. & Kok, Maarten Olivier & O’Shea, Alison J. & Pokhrel, Subhash & Jones, Teresa H. & Boaz, Annette, 2019. "Envisioning and shaping translation of knowledge into action: A comparative case-study of stakeholder engagement in the development of a European tobacco control tool," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(10), pages 917-923.
    7. Angell, Blake & Pares, Jennie & Mooney, Gavin, 2016. "Implementing priority setting frameworks: Insights from leading researchers," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(12), pages 1389-1394.
    8. Fredriksson, Mio & Moberg, Linda, 2020. "Awareness and opinions on healthcare decommissioning in a Swedish region," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(9), pages 991-997.
    9. Rooshenas, Leila & Owen-Smith, Amanda & Hollingworth, William & Badrinath, Padmanabhan & Beynon, Claire & Donovan, Jenny L., 2015. "“I won't call it rationing…”: An ethnographic study of healthcare disinvestment in theory and practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 273-281.
    10. Williams, Iestyn & Allen, Kerry & Plahe, Gunveer, 2019. "Reports of rationing from the neglected realm of capital investment: Responses to resource constraint in the English National Health Service," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 225(C), pages 1-8.
    11. Ciani, Oriana & Tarricone, Rosanna & Torbica, Aleksandra, 2012. "Diffusion and use of health technology assessment in policy making: What lessons for decentralised healthcare systems?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 194-202.
    12. Fredriksson, Mio & Gustafsson, Inga-Britt & Winblad, Ulrika, 2019. "Cuts without conflict: The use of political strategy in local health system retrenchment in Sweden," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 237(C), pages 1-1.
    13. Garpenby, Peter & Nedlund, Ann-Charlotte, 2016. "Political strategies in difficult times – The “backstage” experience of Swedish politicians on formal priority setting in healthcare," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 63-70.
    14. Marialuisa Saviano & Sergio Barile & Francesco Caputo & Mattia Lettieri & Stefania Zanda, 2019. "From Rare to Neglected Diseases: A Sustainable and Inclusive Healthcare Perspective for Reframing the Orphan Drugs Issue," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-21, March.
    15. Aleksandra Torbica & Rosanna Tarricone & Michael Drummond, 2018. "Does the approach to economic evaluation in health care depend on culture, values, and institutional context?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(6), pages 769-774, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:123:y:2019:i:7:p:606-610. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.